Is it just because he said so? Someone please give me some specifics, not just blind rhetoric that can't be measured. As reasons for my skepticism, I'm going to link to Matt Gonzalez, who narrowly lost to Gavin Newsom in 2003 as a Green Party candidate for San Francisco mayor and Ralph Nader's vice presidential candidate this year:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

...

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

...

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”

...

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”

...

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama's record speaks for itself. What reason does anyone have to believe him? Because he's "such a good speaker"?

...since Matt Gonzalez's slant on Obama's actions is clearly not biased in any way.

“How is it that I am a good actor? What I do is I... pretend to be the person I’m portraying. You’re confused. Case in point: in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson comes to me and says ‘I would like you to be Gandalf the Wizard,’ and I said ‘You are aware that I am not really a wizard?’ and Peter Jackson said ‘I would like you to use your acting skills to portray a wizard for the duration of the show.’ So I said ‘Okay’ and then I said to myself ‘Mmm.. How do I do that?’ And this is what I did: I imagined that I was a wizard, and then I pretended, and acted, in that way on the stage. How did I know what to say? The words were written down for me in a script. How did I know where to stand? People told me where to stand." -- Sir Ian McKellen, Extras

Originally posted by Big Bad...since Matt Gonzalez's slant on Obama's actions is clearly not biased in any way.

This is a wonderful, thoughtful rebuttal. I wouldn't think very much of Gonzalez if he said "I don't trust Obama because he's a Democrat," and I doubt you would either, but that's pretty much exactly what you've done. All he's done is list votes and statements that would seem to contradict people's perceptions of Obama. Care to point out something he said you think is invalid, or do you want to ignore someone's voice because of the nonsense you said here?

In other words, Matt Gonzalez's party affiliation or VP candidacy has nothing to do with the fact that Obama voted to authorize funding the Iraq occupation, renewing the PATRIOT Act or confirming Condoleezza Rice. Can anyone defend these actions and explain how they don't contradict the things Obama presents himself as?

Originally posted by TheBucsFan quoting Matt GonzalezIt is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Which makes him a typical politician, just like every other major party candidate for President. That's where this is supposed to be going, right?

Originally posted by TheBucsFan speaking for himselfObama's record speaks for itself. What reason does anyone have to believe him?

What reason do people have to believe any politician of any party, major or minor? That is, what guarantees does a voter have that any candidate will follow through on his or her promises once they are elected?

The ironic thing about this topic is that, in my own humble opinion, proving that Obama would not be an agent for any significant change would probably make him more, not less, appealing to the American public. Of all the nations on the planet, I would rank the USA as most opposed to substantial or meaningful change. I might even go as far as saying that the average American is outright scared of change. But again, that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieWhich makes him a typical politician, just like every other major party candidate for President. That's where this is supposed to be going, right?

Well, that's my opinion. Nobody's been able to present anything to refute it. That's pretty much what I'm asking people.

What reason do people have to believe any politician of any party, major or minor? That is, what guarantees does a voter have that any candidate will follow through on his or her promises once they are elected?

This is a valid question; unfortunately, most people don't think it through to the logical conclusion. The Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly failed to live up to their promises. They've proven they can't be trusted. So why do we keep voting for them instead of giving someone new a chance to prove their not a greedy, corporation appeasing, war-mongering liar?

The ironic thing about this topic is that, in my own humble opinion, proving that Obama would not be an agent for any significant change would probably make him more, not less, appealing to the American public. Of all the nations on the planet, I would rank the USA as most opposed to substantial or meaningful change. I might even go as far as saying that the average American is outright scared of change. But again, that's just my opinion.

I'd say the momentum Obama has garnered by convincing people that he is dramatically different from the rest contradicts this comment. Regardless, even if you are right, these are not the kind of people at whom my question is directed. My question is, "If you are one of the people swayed by Obama's message of 'Change you can Believe In,' than what change is it you believe in and why do you believe in it?"

I have a long list of OTHER questions for people that don't think the American government needs to change in a dramatic way.

Obama brings change simply due to who he is, where he came from, his generation and his background. Whether he can deliver or not is the point.

Change will happen no matter who is elected. The problem is insuring that it is ultimately progress and leads in a good direction. Wouldn't it be safe to say that under "W" we have seen a lot of change.

The thing that bothers me re Obama is the question of his ability to foment the change he wants without a bloodbath every other week. And even if the Congress is strongly Democrat, he will but heads quickly.

My earlier comment may sound like shooting the messenger, but come on, it's the VP candidate of another party (well, sort of a party) criticizing another candidate. Take it with more than a few grains of salt. Not that Gonzalez didn't raise some valid points, but come on.

* 'Supporting' the war --- first of all, that quote was from 2004, when the Democrats' position was basically, "well, Iraq is already a quagmire, so now let's do what we can do put the pieces back together." Obama's position now (that this process took way too goddamn long and the military is no longer providing any benefit to the region) isn't inconsistent with his earlier stance.

The thing that bothers me re Obama is the question of his ability to foment the change he wants without a bloodbath every other week. And even if the Congress is strongly Democrat, he will but heads quickly.

Underline 'strongly.' The Dems are going to kick ass in the Senate and House election in November, partially because the country is fed up with the Republicans and partially because the Republican congressional election committee is doing a comically awful job of fundraising. Even considering the presence of Blue Dog Dems, there will still be enough liberal-leaners in the House to make Obama's first 18 months very progressive.

Man, American politics are way more interesting than Canadian politics. Up here we just have the Prime Minister and his cronies trying to bribe a dying MP with a life insurance policy in exchange for a vote to bring down the former Liberal government. Yawn.

“How is it that I am a good actor? What I do is I... pretend to be the person I’m portraying. You’re confused. Case in point: in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson comes to me and says ‘I would like you to be Gandalf the Wizard,’ and I said ‘You are aware that I am not really a wizard?’ and Peter Jackson said ‘I would like you to use your acting skills to portray a wizard for the duration of the show.’ So I said ‘Okay’ and then I said to myself ‘Mmm.. How do I do that?’ And this is what I did: I imagined that I was a wizard, and then I pretended, and acted, in that way on the stage. How did I know what to say? The words were written down for me in a script. How did I know where to stand? People told me where to stand." -- Sir Ian McKellen, Extras

Is Hillary Clinton going to get Universal Health Care passed if elected? (No)

Is John McCain going to keep the Bush tax cuts, continue prosecuting the wa.. surge in Iraq, and get the Federal Budget to balance again if elected? (No)

Is Barack Obama going to single-handedly end partisan politics in America if elected? (No)

These are campaign promises, and should not be taken as more than hopes of how the candidates wish to do things if they get into the Oval Office. For what it's worth, Obama at least has control over his own actions in governing the country if he makes it. But he can't wave a magic wand and change Congress, and anyone who expects different is probably bringing this up for political effect.

Oh.. and are Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez going to get the slightest whiff of having to worry about actually keeping a campaign promise of their own? (No)

Much easier to speak freely when you're not going to get a half million votes nationally, right?

Originally posted by TheOldManOh.. and are Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez going to get the slightest whiff of having to worry about actually keeping a campaign promise of their own? (No)

Much easier to speak freely when you're not going to get a half million votes nationally, right?

So is this an acknowledgment that what Obama says can't be trusted, because he's only saying what will get him votes? I mean, if he's exactly like every other politician, than let's admit it and stop putting him on a pedestal and declaring him more honest than all the rest.

Even if it's not that, it's a pretty silly comment. You can't (or at least won't) defend the golden boy's record and actions, so you make fun of someone who can't get elected because Americans are more concerned with voting for a winner than voting for someone who is honest and wants to change the things that need to be changed? Or is there something here I'm missing?

I think a lot of people's faith in Obama is completely irrational. They see him, they hear his story, they hear him speak and they fall in love with him. That's not entirely bad - I feel it too. I watch Obama on TV and I saw him live in Texas last year and I feel it too. I hear him speak, and I feel like I'm listening to someone who is serious about changing some of the bullshit that has gone on in Washington for so long. But then I look at his record, as highlighted above, and I just can't keep the feeling.

For me, when every rational thought I have completely contradicts any irrational feelings, I just can't defer to the irrational. I think it's a dangerous trait for people to have - a trait that is very easily exploited, say by putting a smooth-talking, attractive man at the front of a group that supports things I think are as disgusting as the Iraq occupation, the PATRIOT Act and other things I just consider unacceptable.

I guess if people were to acknowledge that their faith in Obama is completely irrational, there's not much I can say about it. All I can do is tell them they don't *have* to be irrational about which presidential candidate they vote for. But then you open the door to "oh, I'd rather vote for a winner than for the candidate I most agree with," and the argument starts all over again.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't recall anyone here on this forum specifically "putting Obama on a pedestal," I'm talking more in a general sense with those comments.

Even if it's not that, it's a pretty silly comment. You can't (or at least won't) defend the golden boy's record and actions, so you make fun of someone who can't get elected because Americans are more concerned with voting for a winner than voting for someone who is honest and wants to change the things that need to be changed? Or is there something here I'm missing?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 11.3.08 1625)

Both Obama and Nader want things to change that need to be changed. The reality, however, is that no president is going to be able to make changes that are all that sweeping. The difference is that Obama is willing to compromise to actually accomplish some things, while Nader takes the position that if we can't make things perfect, we should just let them deteriorate.

The other reality is that Obama's actions don't always seem - to me, at least - to jive with the words he uses.

A vote for Obama is a vote for renewing the PATRIOT Act. Period. If you think the PATRIOT Act, in the version that was renewed in 2006, is in any way acceptable, Obama is the candidate for you. In having this same conversation with other people in another forum, I was stunned to learn that many of them conceded that the PATRIOT Act wasn't all that bad. To me, the only parts of the PATRIOT Act - the very few parts to which you could point and say, "see, this isn't nearly as bad as the rest" - are at best redundant laws, and still identify as their motive "catching 'terrorists.'" For example, one part says it is now illegal to launder money for the purpose of aiding terrorism. I guess it would have been legal on Sept. 10, 2001, to launder money for groups of people planning to fly planes into the World Trade Center? It's totally unnecessary. The PATRIOT Act is unacceptable to me primarily because of the word "terrorism." "Terrorist" is the new "witch." I could almost swear there's some cliche about people not learning from history or something, but I was too busy taking American history classes in Florida's wonderful public education system that completely avoided mentioning the antics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy - whoever he was. As Obama is painted as the more "liberal" of the two Democratic candidates, I had assumed that most of his supporters agreed with me that the act was in no way acceptable. Apparently, I was wrong: As long as Obama supporters acknowledge that they are OK with the PATRIOT Act, there's no contradiction on their part. It doesn't make Obama a good candidate though; it just means his supporters are OK with giving up their civil liberties.

A vote for Obama is a vote to expand the military. He has said repeatedly that he wants to expand the US military by 100,000 troops. A vote for Obama is in no way a vote for an anti-war America, or even a less in-your-face, do-what-we-say-because-we-have-more-bombs-than-you America. The US has a military presence in what, 78 countries right now? Maybe more? As long as people that support Obama agree with him that our military is not big enough right now, there is no contradiction. It doesn't mean Obama wants the military to play less of a role in foreign policy; it just means his supporters want to spend more than the hundreds of billions of dollars we already do on our military each year.

A vote for Obama is a vote to get the same health insurance companies that have helped screw up the American health care system more involved in the American health care system. In now way is what Obama (or Clinton) proposes a "universal health care" plan. In the face of skyrocketing health care costs that are only getting higher, insurance won't do a damn thing for a poor person who, say, gets more than a cold. Obama's position doesn't mean all Americans will get health care they need; it only means his supporters think relying more on the same private corporations that the country was relying on when its health care got too expensive in the first place is the answer to the same problem.

If these are the things you support, fine, I guess there is no contradiction in supporting Obama. But in now way is Obama proposing the kinds of change Nader or a million other third-party candidates (or even a select few Democrats) are.

I'm all about compromise, but not when compromise means giving up civil rights. There's a reason they're called "rights." In my opinion, ANY civil rights infringement is just as bad as any other civil rights infringement. There is no such thing as a "minor" civil rights infringement. And less can only lead to more.

I'm all about compromising, but not when it means expanding the military. Decreasing the military is one of the things that would have to be accomplished for me to think a compromise worthwhile. What is Obama gaining by saying he wants to make the already bloated military even bigger? Nothing, he just seems to genuinely think it needs to be done.

An example of a compromise I could handle is Obama on education. It's the one issue with which I could live with his proposal, even though it's far, far, FAR short of what I want to see done. The problem is, Obama hardly ever talks about it; that, or I'm just missing it. I see way more mentions of expanding the military from him than I do of increasing teachers' pay and education, to name one issue that needs to be addressed. As it seems like an afterthought to him, it would be pretty pointless for me to get behind him due to it.

I could live with a candidate who acknowledged that things like the above mentioned need to be changed, but that it is going to take "baby steps" to get them done. The problem is, Obama doesn't even talk about the kinds of things I am talking about when I say "things need to change."

If ALL of these negatives about Obama are "compromise," please tell me what he's receiving in return for the compromise. A less invasive, but still totally unacceptable version of the PATRIOT Act? Anything else? Sure, maybe you'll say religion will play less of a role - but for one thing, I don't necessarily believe that. Whenever Obama is questioned on his religion and his Muslim background, he still feels the need to reassure everyone that he's a good Christian man, when the only really correct answer - if you're serious about religion not having an impact, anyway - would be, "why the fuck does my religion matter?" More importantly, the things that Bush has exploited his religion to do - invade other countries, take away civil liberties, etc, - apparently won't really change with Obama, so if the end result is the same, who really cares?

EDIT: And just to cut off one more potential argument regarding religion: Passing the PATRIOT Act and telling women they are not allowed to have abortions are the same thing. They are both nothing but one invasion of privacy after another. So if we have to accept the PATRIOT Act to preserve the right to an abortion than nothing has been gained; in fact, we pretty much setting the precedent that it's OK to ban abortion.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanAnd just to cut off one more potential argument regarding religion: Passing the PATRIOT Act and telling women they are not allowed to have abortions are the same thing. They are both nothing but one invasion of privacy after another. So if we have to accept the PATRIOT Act to preserve the right to an abortion than nothing has been gained; in fact, we pretty much setting the precedent that it's OK to ban abortion.

I see. And, if we repeal the PATRIOT Act, then we'll be safe from other current invasions of privacy too. So, I could have the right to have sex with underage girls. And boys too! Damn PATRIOT Act. [/sarcasm]

Originally posted by TheBucsFanAnd just to cut off one more potential argument regarding religion: Passing the PATRIOT Act and telling women they are not allowed to have abortions are the same thing. They are both nothing but one invasion of privacy after another. So if we have to accept the PATRIOT Act to preserve the right to an abortion than nothing has been gained; in fact, we pretty much setting the precedent that it's OK to ban abortion.

I see. And, if we repeal the PATRIOT Act, then we'll be safe from other current invasions of privacy too. So, I could have the right to have sex with underage girls. And boys too! Damn PATRIOT Act. [/sarcasm]

Laws banning sex with minors are valid laws because your right to privacy only exists in as far as you can use it and not harm someone else. The minute you try and defend harming someone else by saying it's done in private is the minute you void any claim to privacy in the matter.

I can't believe I just read a comment comparing - equating, no less! - not having my phone calls spied on by the federal government to having sex with children.

EDIT: Of course, the argument that there are minors that are capable of deciding independent of coercion that they want to have sex with adults is a valid one, and they should have the right to privacy like anyone else. That is an entirely separate argument. The laws as they were intended were not an invasion of your privacy.

I don't expect a great deal of actual change with Obama. My support for him boils down to "The least objectionable of the viable candidates". I've accepted, long ago, that my views are much more leftist on some issues than mainstream America. That said, I find Nader to be a preachy schmuck who, whatever good he's done, has become nothing more than a gadfly, sound and fury (and not even much of that) adding up to nothing. The country is certainly not going to elect a radical leftist. They just aren't. The country's far too divided on these sorts of issues to do that sort of sweeping transformation. So, I look to do it in increments. I look for a candidate who can accomplish something, anything, even something small, towards what I would like to see.

Look, I'd love as much as anybody to see money out of politics, to see spin taken out of politics, to see a clean, honest, forthright debate on issues of substance. I'd like to see people able to disagree without policy and NOT depict the other person as the Devil's grandchild.

I support Obama partially, yes, because of his background and who he is. I think electing an African-American with a Muslim name to follow up George W. Bush's eight year reign of terror sends a clear message to the world: No more of that. Or at least, significantly less. Do I love all of his policies? No, but I like them better than I do, say, Hillary's or McCain's. Which pretty much makes him my only choice.

As I said, I understand the desire to vote for idealism and to say "I can't vote for somebody who doesn't agree with all my values". I fully support your right to vote that way. But I'm tired of being chastised for being a realist. Unless a radical re-alignment of the media, the electoral structure and Congressional politics happens, then third parties will always and forever remain also-rans. The only conceivable way it could happen is if someone of eloquence, undeniable charisma and great personal wealth decided to screw them all over and do things his own way. And I can't really think of anyone out there who could be that. It's not Nader. It's not Bloomberg. Until we get the non-partisan equivalent of The Rock layin' the smacketh down on Repubs and Dems alike...things shall continue as they have for some time. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanLaws banning sex with minors are valid laws because your right to privacy only exists in as far as you can use it and not harm someone else. The minute you try and defend harming someone else by saying it's done in private is the minute you void any claim to privacy in the matter.

I can't believe I just read a comment comparing - equating, no less! - not having my phone calls spied on by the federal government to having sex with children.

As this:

Laws banning abortion would be valid laws because your right to privacy only exists in as far as you can use it and not harm someone else. The minute you try and defend killing an unborn baby by saying it's done in private is the minute you void any claim to privacy in the matter.

I can't believe I just read a comment comparing - equating, no less! - not having my phone calls spied on by the federal government to abortion.

-----------------------------------------------

Lastly, to hopefully express myself clearly, I am personally against all three--anti-PATRIOT Act, ant-abortion and anti-pedophilia. And, getting back to the point of my initial post, the argument that the PATRIOT Act impacts abortion (or pedophilia, for that matter) is specious at best. But, YMMV.

EDIT: And, in response to GEG, although I'm not likely to vote for Obama, I agree with what you wrote. The perfect storm for a third party candidate was Perot in '92; neither major party candidate was particularly compelling or popular, he had $$$, charisma, a message that resonated with a lot of people (eloquence--not so much) and I think he could have won a plurality in the general election had he not inexplicably dropped out when his popularity was cresting. But, he still probably wouldn't have had enough Electoral College votes to win before the election went to the House. And, that would be the biggest hurdle for a third party candidate--not letting the election get to the House.

Lastly, even with three candidates, most of us would still have to go with the lesser evil (or most good, if you want to be positive).

Laws banning abortion would be valid laws because your right to privacy only exists in as far as you can use it and not harm someone else. The minute you try and defend killing an unborn baby by saying it's done in private is the minute you void any claim to privacy in the matter.

I can't believe I just read a comment comparing - equating, no less! - not having my phone calls spied on by the federal government to abortion.

Yes but this comment circumvents the entire abortion debate. It's not possible to "kill" an unborn baby in the same sense you can "kill" an adult. There is no harm done in your statement - in my view, anyway. This is different from forcing sex on a minor, which is harmful - again, in my view, anyway.

And I didn't say the PATRIOT Act would have an effect on abortion, other than the fact that people are willing to overlook the fact that Obama voted for one major invasion of privacy because they're afraid the Republicans would vote for another. I also said it then would set the precedent that invasion of privacy was acceptable, which changes the scope of debates on abortion and pretty much any other issue of privacy.

I'm going to go in a different direction with this. I'm more than likely going to vote for Nader, but the recent Gerry Ferrarro remarks about Obama being where he is because he is "a black man" makes me take another look at my vote because maybe Obama really can create change. I don't believe Obama is where he is because he is black. He has inspired more black people to vote, but if a young white politician came along as charasmatic I don't see why he would be any less popular.

Maybe Obama cannot change Washington overnight, but maybe he can help "change" the way we all look at race and people in general. Maybe, it's just where I live, but a good amount of the stuff I hear about Obama in everyday life makes me kind of sad that we haven't really gotten as far as I thought we had.

I take "change" more as a way of saying the Obama is new or at least newer than HRC or McCain. Hillary has been running for president for the last 16 years. McCain has been running for the last 8. Sure a lot of his fans think that the world would be a better place the day after Obama became POTUS but it's not going to happen.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanThe other reality is that Obama's actions don't always seem - to me, at least - to jive with the words he uses.

A vote for Obama is a vote for renewing the PATRIOT Act. Period.

That's utterly ridiculous. First off, the fact that he voted for it before does not in any way prove that he will push for it to be renewed again. Secondly, even if it did, so long as McCain is going to renew the Patroit Act--and even you must admit that that's at least as likely--then we're not *getting* a vote on whether to renew the Patriot Act.

OTOH, a vote for Nader makes it more likely that McCain will win the White House, so it is in fact FAR more accurate to say that a vote for Nader is a vote for renewing the Patriot Act.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanA vote for Obama is a vote to expand the military. He has said repeatedly that he wants to expand the US military by 100,000 troops. A vote for Obama is in no way a vote for an anti-war America, or even a less in-your-face, do-what-we-say-because-we-have-more-bombs-than-you America. The US has a military presence in what, 78 countries right now? Maybe more?

Which is why we need more troops. You'd prefer to just keep sending the same soldiers who've already spent ages in Iraq back overseas? You'd prefer to keep sending National Guard troops overseas?

Originally posted by TheBucsFan As long as people that support Obama agree with him that our military is not big enough right now, there is no contradiction. It doesn't mean Obama wants the military to play less of a role in foreign policy; it just means his supporters want to spend more than the hundreds of billions of dollars we already do on our military each year.

The problem with the military budget isn't the money we spend on troop salaries. There are plenty of other places to cut the budget.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanA vote for Obama is a vote to get the same health insurance companies that have helped screw up the American health care system more involved in the American health care system.

Again, that's going to happen no matter who you vote for. Which makes it irrelevant.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanIf these are the things you support, fine, I guess there is no contradiction in supporting Obama. But in now way is Obama proposing the kinds of change Nader or a million other third-party candidates (or even a select few Democrats) are.

Because there's no way that anyone proposing that kind of change will get elected.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanI'm all about compromise, but not when compromise means giving up civil rights.

But you're quite happy to give up civil rights by NOT compromising, and that's the problem. See below.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanIf ALL of these negatives about Obama are "compromise," please tell me what he's receiving in return for the compromise. A less invasive, but still totally unacceptable version of the PATRIOT Act? Anything else?

The biggest thing, of course, is that you'll be recieving liberal Supreme Court Justices--Justices who may, in fact, find themselves in a position to overturn those very parts of the Patriot Act that we find so odious. We'll get a government that will expand abortion rights, not try to end them. We'll get a government that is more inclusive towards homosexuals. We'll get an end to the outrageous Bush tax cuts for the wealthy--tax cuts which, one way or another, people of less means will have to pay for eventually. We'll get a government that is no longer trying to gut enforcement of food safety and a host of other regulations on big business. Just to name a few.

Originally posted by TheBucsFan Sure, maybe you'll say religion will play less of a role - but for one thing, I don't necessarily believe that. Whenever Obama is questioned on his religion and his Muslim background, he still feels the need to reassure everyone that he's a good Christian man, when the only really correct answer - if you're serious about religion not having an impact, anyway - would be, "why the fuck does my religion matter?"

Well, again, what you're saying is you'd never support a candidate who tries to win. Come back to the real world.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanMore importantly, the things that Bush has exploited his religion to do - invade other countries, take away civil liberties, etc, - apparently won't really change with Obama, so if the end result is the same, who really cares?

Piling assumptions on top of assumptions. Hey, Obama doesn't want to cut the number of troops the way I do, so he's clearly for a big military. And if he's for a big military, well, clearly he's as likely to invade a foreign country as a Republican is. Can you not see the huge leaps you're making here?

Originally posted by TheBucsFanEDIT: And just to cut off one more potential argument regarding religion: Passing the PATRIOT Act and telling women they are not allowed to have abortions are the same thing. They are both nothing but one invasion of privacy after another. So if we have to accept the PATRIOT Act to preserve the right to an abortion than nothing has been gained; in fact, we pretty much setting the precedent that it's OK to ban abortion.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 12.3.08 1822)

So what you're saying is, if women want to have the right to an abortion, they'd better damn well wait until YOUR rights are protected, too. If YOU can't get what you want, screw everyone else. Their civil rights can just be thrown under the bus.